Sunday, August 13, 2017

How to Deal with Rising Oceans

I thought this was an interesting concept...
CNN Tech Dutch Test Floating Islands
Wiki Off Shore Wind Farms

And just think how easy it will be for rich people to set up their own exclusive island country with it's own laws...  They can just have it built in the future. 

52 comments:

Anonymous said...

Not electing Donald Trump might help. The fact is, we made an irrevocable decision in 2016. We decided in a way that we cannot go back on, that the Donald Trumps of this world, thug that he is, was correct on global warming. We just have to hope we were right.

--Hiram

John said...

Hiram,
As Jerry continually notes, the big decisions will not be made in the USA. We simply do not have enough of the world's population to make a huge difference, and we are well on our way to changing to cleaner power sources for many reasons. (ie political, economic, in fashion, etc)

The question is what will Asia, Africa and South America do? Will they get their runaway population growth under control and adopt cleaner energies, or will they stay on their current path.

John said...

World Population Density Map

jerrye92002 said...

What is a "cleaner power source"? The only reason we are on the path to "renewable energy" is because a bunch of doofuses with political power decided to subsidize a bunch of rich folks to produce it, and to mandate the rest of us pay for it, even though it doesn't even accomplish what they set out to do with it. If those same rich folks decide to set up their own country to escape such gross stupidity, they are to be congratulated for common sense.

jerrye92002 said...

Interestingly enough, they will probably use a renewable, CO2-free, technologically available energy source (see OTEC).

jerrye92002 said...

Also interesting, the rate of sea level rise is actual slowing, compared with hundreds or thousands of years ago.

John said...

My usual word at this time...

Sources?

jerrye92002 said...

historic sea levels

And let me say I am greatly surprised that you do not already know this.

John said...

Apparently we have differing sources...

Sea Level History

I there seems to be some significant differences of opinion on this.

John said...

Wiki Sea Level

jerrye92002 said...

Sorry, but anything Michael Mann is involved in is automatically suspect. The "hockey stick" appearance of that graph is also suspect since by "consensus," the temperature of the ocean and subsequent expansion of the water are responsible for sea level rise, along with melting ice (caused by warmer weather). Since the Medieval Warm Period doesn't appear on that graph, it must be in error. And what I was referencing was sea level history of thousands of years, not a few hundred.

"...there seems to be some significant differences of opinion on this." Oh, so science is a matter of opinion, now? Einstein said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me [i.e. the theory] wrong." One scientist armed with the facts should, by all rights, defeat the "97% consensus." Climate models are not facts.

And doctored history is not fact, either. Einstein also said, "If the data do not fit the theory, change the data."

John said...

I think we will both need to some more study.

When I was looking I found a lot of conflicting information. There are many ancient harbor cities that are now flooded. And then your source which rambles is painful to read. Maybe I'll try again later.

One would think it would be easy to look at the history of ancient cities to solve this but apparently it is not that simple due to shifting plate, erosion, tide changes, etc.

When I was in Glenwood Springs CO I went through a cave that had at one time been in the ocean. That does not mean the water was ever that high...

jerrye92002 said...

The way I look at it-- I've been to the site of the Bering land bridge that existed some 10,000 years ago. The water was about 400 feet lower back then. It hasn't risen nearly that much in the last few thousand years, so it must be slowing down. If you want to claim the rate of rise is unprecedented, you can't. If you want to claim it is unprecented because the rate of temperature rise causing it is unprecedented, you have a double problem. And if you want to claim that human CO2 is causing all of it, that's just crazy talk.

John said...

You made that same mistake of assuming that the bridge is at the same elevation...

jerrye92002 said...

note the first paragraph second column

jerrye92002 said...

Elsewhere on that site the 120m (400 ft) figure is prominently mentioned. Somehow a few millimeters per year doesn't seem that problematic.

John said...

Now we are looking at brochures for scientific fact... I think we will need to keep looking..

I do find it interesting how difficult it is to find clear long term historic ocean level summaries.

jerrye92002 said...

Keep in mind this is the official government website, and the "facts" are well known. The Bering Land Bridge did exist; it existed because all the water was locked up in the ice of the Ice Age, and when the "global warming" that ended the last ice age (no doubt due to primitive man's campfires :-/) came along the ice melted and the seas rose 400 feet. It's essentially common knowledge and accepted scientific fact, just like Pangea and continental drift. We don't need "clear long term historic ocean level" data to be precise down to the meter or to the century. If the seas only came up 110 meters and not 120, that's still less than 10% error and the remaining is still a huge number compared to the centimeters per century we now see, and in which even small annual errors create considerable uncertainty about the trend.

So, how to deal with rising oceans? If you are worried about it, don't put your new beach house so close to the ocean. Otherwise, take a risk and maybe pick one up on the cheap as the worriers run away. If you are /really/ worried, build your beach house in Nevada.

jerrye92002 said...

Oh, and it is easier to find long term ocean information (preservation of sediments, etc.) than it is long term temperature records. The only consistent method we have for that latter is the ice cores, and they show that global warming causes CO2, not the other way around.

Anonymous said...

"...global warming causes CO2..."

HAS caused. In the past. Before humans.

It's not hard to understand the concept that we may have changed the rules of the game by pumping excess CO2 into the atmosphere.

Or are you saying you have proof that your statement is true for all time and in all cases?

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

I have the proof of simple logic. A. Natural global warming caused CO2 to increase in the past. B. Nothing in the current day has altered that fact. It can be proven easily by a simple science experiment.


The argument is that humans are, at present, pumping "excess" CO2 into the atmosphere and that we are causing ADDITIONAL global warming to occur. From whatever cause, CO2 is currently at 400 ppm (parts per million). If humans manage to cut 25% from their emissions AND if Nature suddenly ceases her natural contribution, we can avoid a rise to 404 ppm. You really think that matters? If I told you that's less than the seasonal variation?

Anonymous said...

You're too far gone to get it.

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

Correct, Moose. In fact I am often told "so long as you insist on facts and logic, you will never understand."

And perhaps you could help me. Please cite exactly which of my facts and logic has led me astray.

Oh, And the definitive scientific evidence (that warming causes CO2) was offered up by Al Gore.

Anonymous said...

It's quite simple logic.

warming causes CO2
CO2 causes warming

Either can come first, and the result will be the same.

'In fact I am often told "so long as you insist on facts and logic..."'

Let me know when you start.

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

It is, indeed, pretty simple logic, but I insist on logic AND facts.

"CO2 causes warming" is NOT a factual statement.
"warming causes CO2" IS a factual statement.

The correct logical formulation therefore is not that "either can come first." It is that "since the thing caused must be preceded by the cause, CO2 cannot be the cause of global warming." And the "lag" is anywhere from 200-800 years. Oddly enough, today's CO2 rise corresponds to what we would expect from coming out of the Little Ice Age 200-400 years ago.

Anonymous said...

Except the earth has never tried pumping excess CO2 into the atmosphere before, so you can't know your statement is true. But we do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I'll go with what we DO know.

I mean you're practically giving proof that what's happening now is not natural. What's natural is that CO2 lags warming. The opposite is happening this time.

If CO2 lagged warming at 99 different times in planetary history, but there was one time that warming lagged CO2, you'd want to find out why it was different.

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

You have a reasonably logical argument there, Moose. Let me try to explain the evident confusion.

The Earth HAS tried "pumping" CO2 into the atmosphere before. How else did those huge rises AFTER historic temperature rises occur? Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but the amount of warming contributed by additional CO2 (the all-important "climate sensitivity") is under dispute over a very wide range (about 20:1, if I recall).

The fact that CO2 is rising while temperatures are not (if you believe the satellite data) proves that CO2, manmade or otherwise, doesn't cause warming. That warming lags CO2, if you want to phrase it that way, is simply disproven by the current temperature record, because if CO2 lags warming, it ALSO lags cooling. Scientists may be correct in saying that, if humans quit producing CO2 today, temperatures would not start down for 200 years (they are not correct in blaming temperatures on CO2, of course) because CO2 would continue to rise (naturally) due to all the warming that has already taken place.

I would say the current VERY SHORT history of temperatures and CO2, so far, seem to present as an entirely natural scenario, or are certainly within the bounds of it. It seems silly to prescribe radical policy solutions for a problem we don't know for certain exists, and which we may be unable to impact in any significant way.

jerrye92002 said...

Let's settle the question with science.
the science

John said...

I think you had better read the actual papers... Not just some deniers cherry picked quotes.

Paper 1 Conclusions on Page 203

In essence it says that sea rise due to climate change is happening, however forecasting it is very complicated and they are going to do more work to improve the forecasting.

I really don't have the heart to pick apart the other 3 sources to determine how your source misused their statements. I tried to figure out who this Kenneth Richard is but all I came up was this Public Policy Wonk... Maybe...

jerrye92002 said...

Pick away. The gist of the papers seems to be correct, that natural variation far outweighs any "anthropogenic signal" that might be detected. What I was looking for when I found this is that someone has gone back to about 1850 and integrated all the available data on sea levels. Then they created a chart in which the rate of rise was calculated from 1850-1950, and then again from 1950-2015. The rates were identical.

And again, the "climatistas" are trying to scare everybody LONG before we have enough information to make a solid policy prescription. We don't know that we have "unusually" rising seas, nor do we have any clue that fossil fuels have anything to do with it. What we DO know is that there is a direct solution for the problem of rising seas, called sea walls or moving upward. Instead we have people trying, like King Canute, to keep the waters from rising by trying to change the AIR rather than the water, and being essentially powerless to do either.

John said...

Better Safe Than Sorry...

John said...

That came from this web page.

jerrye92002 said...

So?

Here is the complete quote: "Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems." Let's nitpick.

The first phrase is either a lie or a statement with no supporting evidence. If you want to talk about things like the urban heat island effect, or smog, it is true in the local sense, but in the context of Anthropogenic Global Warming, it is not. The second part of that first sentence has absolutely ZERO logical or scientific connect to the second sentence. And in fact the second sentence proves it. We are expected to infer that these climate changes are manmade, but to say that (which the sentence absolutely does NOT) would be a lie or at best an unproven assertion.

That second sentence is really interesting. It is absolutely true, yet does not even MENTION what they want you to presume is the CAUSE.

Your first cite, the one I thought was going to suggest that spending $70 trillion to prevent global warming rather than spending $1 trillion to adapt to it if and when, is the "better," likewise proves only that anthropogenic CO2 is increasing. That's it. So?

jerrye92002 said...

Let me make this more clear. You constantly remind us of the axiom that "correlation is not causation." Otherwise we would have long ago run all the preachers out of New Hampshire because incidents of rum-running correlated very well with the number of preachers. So, what we have here is a search for the "causal chain" of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. You must prove, in turn, that:

1. Manmade CO2 is the principal driver of total atmospheric CO2,
2. That total atmospheric CO2 is the principal driver of global temperatures,
3. That we can MEASURE a "global temperature" and ...
4. ... that it has any meaning for humankind's survival,
5. That CO2 will continue to rise essentially forever, and
6. That at some point the CO2 will cause temperatures to reach a point "catastrophic" to human life.

Can you prove, scientifically, all of those things? Do that, and then we'll worry.

jerrye92002 said...

Or we can end this particular topic by noting the recent study showing beaches across the world getting LONGER, not shorter.

John said...

I am going to keep advocating that we let off the gas pedal and tap on the brakes until we know more. Please feel free to keep advocating for stepping on the gas pedal and hurtling into the uncertain.

jerrye92002 said...

I don't think you categorize either of our positions correctly. I say that CO2 doesn't matter and the IPCC, EPA, simple math and "peer-reviewed studies" back it up. And if you can explain what kind of power generation is cheaper and equally reliable AND incidentally produces less CO2, I will join you in advocating its use. It will be very easy. "Hey, folks, it's cheaper and equally reliable!" Until we know more, tinkering with the gas pedal makes no sense.

John said...

I know... Full Speed Ahead Consequences be Damned... :-)

Anonymous said...

There is a wide, straight and flat road ahead, for as far as the eye can see, and the only possible obstacles are a couple eco-freaks carrying sandwich signs that say "repent or the end is nigh." So who you gonna believe, these doomsayers, or your own lyin' eyes?

Look back at the list of necessary proofs for the CAGW "theory" to be true. I'll even grant you a "gimme" on one of them. [insert Serenity Prayer]

jerrye9

John said...

You must have good eyes, since you are the only one on this blog that sees so clearly. :-)

jerrye92002 said...

"in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

Get back to me with the proofs required to help me "see" what I cannot.

John said...

Sorry. I can not convince the man with poor eye sight that we think their may be a moose standing in the road when he insists that it is only fog while stomping on the gas.

That is the interesting thing about probability and risk management.

In this case the severity of potential consequences may the death of millions of people. Not just the crashing of one car and a dead moose.

So even if the risk is only moderate, it justifies hitting the brakes some until further research clears up the issue.

jerrye92002 said...

You're talking FMEA again. I see the costs of avoiding the catastrophe somewhere near $70 Trillion (economist estimates) and the cost of adaptation as about $7 Trillion (economist estimates). The difference is that the price of the failure is about 1/10 the cost of preventing the failure. The probability of detection is very high, either way, but prevention requires that you know the exact cause, magnitude and timing of the "failure" and we know NOTHING about that. Adaptation requires only that you detect the situation when and if it happens, and then you fix it. It is the difference between building your product like a tank so it never fails (at very high cost) or building something that people can afford and accepting a certain amount of warranty returns.

John said...

$70 Trillion for cleaner energy...

$7 Trillion to relocate most of humans on earth away from the equator and the coastlines...

Sources please...

jerrye92002 said...

Define "cleaner."

Anonymous said...

"...the price of the failure is about 1/10 the cost of preventing the failure."

One wonders what the price of the deaths of millions of humans is.

Moose

John said...

Cleaner: Energy returns the earth to it's natural balance.

As if 7,000,000,000 and growing humans were not here... To ensure we are not triggering unintended negative consequences.

Is that vague enough...

jerrye92002 said...

Moose, are we talking about the same imaginary humans that will die from imaginary global warming? Does one need fear fevered imaginings? Sorry, perhaps I should be more clear. The original estimate said that this price of "adaptation" is about the same as the cost of eradicating worldwide poverty and saving millions of people. And better economic circumstances make it easier to adapt to Nature's whims, if and when. so if we're going to spend a fortune anyway, better to eradicate poverty and get the potential to adapt better to global warming as a side benefit, if it becomes necessary.

John, it seems like your project plan includes that classic step called "and here, a miracle occurs." I want to know how you are going to have a CO2-free energy sector when the mining, refining, transport, manufacture, installation and maintenance of those "renewable" energy sources produce more CO2 than is "saved" by their operation over their lifetime?

"returns the Earth to its natural balance" presumes, of course and without evidence, that it is "out of balance" now.

The "negative consequences" of having 7 billion people on the planet can be solved one of two ways: Expend a MASSIVE amount of energy to move them all to some /other/ planet, or kill them all here. Which do you prefer? I prefer the one that says humans are a part of this natural world and we need to avoid the "negative consequences" to ourselves as best we can.

Anonymous said...

"...better to eradicate poverty..."

Something Republicans and Conservatives have demonstrated no interest in investing in.

"...humans are a part of this natural world and we need to avoid the "negative consequences" to ourselves as best we can."

Does imperiling the rest of life on this planet count as a negative consequence to humans?

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

"Does imperiling the rest of life on this planet count as a negative consequence to humans?"

Absolutely, Yes. But of course plant life is thriving with all the CO2, and animal life won't be harmed until the atmospheric concentration of CO2 reaches 10-20 times what it is now. And the threat of nuclear holocaust or even a major war, or government-created starvation like in Venezuela, is equal or more worrisome then some notion of a far Future rise of a few degrees in temperature, especially if it were a natural event.

That's the problem: If Harvey was entirely natural and within the natural variability of weather phenomena, then how could humans have prevented it from happening? How many windmills could we have put up to stop Harvey from occurring?

Anonymous said...

If Harvey was entirely natural and within the natural variability of weather phenomena, then how could humans have prevented it from happening?

If...


But you're asking the wrong question.

If Harvey's effects were enhanced due to human activity on this planet, why are we still arguing and doing nothing?

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

Moose, I think I asked the right question. If Harvey was natural, humans could not have prevented it from happening. If Harvey's effects were enhanced due to human activity-- YOUR question-- then you must tell us exactly how many windmills we should have put up to bring it back "down" to what it naturally would have been.

Why are we still arguing and doing nothing? Because nobody has offered us any substantial evidence that there is anything we humans CAN do. I mean, there are things we can do (like going to a ball game or putting up windmills), certainly, but they simply won't matter to the problem at hand.